If president, Gingrich promises to ignore the Supreme Court when their decisions displease him.

Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.

Conservative Republicans who want a strict interpretation of the Constitution applaud this promise to ignore the constitution.

The strangest thing (so far-) in this very strange campaign is finding out that two women were fighting over Newt Gingrich!

CATTYCATTYI saw a pic of Callista today (Think Progress?) in which she bore an uncanny resemblance to Jack Nicholson as The Joker. And Mitt reminds me of Dr Jekyll when he's about 1/4 of the way to Mr Hyde... It's .those spooky hooded eyes with heavy brows, not to mention the lust for money and power...who knew that we'd see Mitt stripped so bare?

If president, Gingrich promises to ignore the Supreme Court when their decisions displease him.

"Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody."

-=-=-I see he's blaming the MEDIA for his second wife's announcement about the open marriage. Did the "evil media" strap her down and force this confession from her? Or did they simply NOT HIDE what she said?

How again is the media responsible for what his ex-wife told everyone?

How again is the media responsible for what his ex-wife told everyone?

Nothing makes the nutters heads explode faster than simple statements of fact. They really think that facts shouldn't be reported if it doesn't help their agenda. This is only one of a gazillion examples.

<<How again is the media responsible for what his ex-wife told everyone?

Nothing makes the nutters heads explode faster than simple statements of fact. They really think that facts shouldn't be reported if it doesn't help their agenda. >>

This is obviuously a woman with an axe to grind, who might reasonably be supposed to be willing to say ANYTHING to attack her ex-husband. And it was rather obviously a calculated effort aimed at doing the most harm possible.

Not very credible, although liberals and the media will no doubt milk it for all its worth. It's not worth much, but enjoy it if you've got it.

This is obviuously a woman with an axe to grind, who might reasonably be supposed to be willing to say ANYTHING to attack her ex-husband. And it was rather obviously a calculated effort aimed at doing the most harm possible...Not very credible...

Newt Gingrich already confirmed to having an affair with Callista while married to Marianne. Marianne is confirming what everyone already knew, with the exception of some minor details.

If she was wildly lying as you claim, it is an odd coincidence that it almost perfectly matches what Newt said.

<<Newt Gingrich already confirmed to having an affair with Callista while married to Marianne. Marianne is confirming what everyone already knew, with the exception of some minor details.

If she was wildly lying as you claim, it is an odd coincidence that it almost perfectly matches what Newt said. >>

I accept everything they agree upon, and I'm suspicious of the disclosures she has added to that catalog. I am willing to consider the things she has added to be unproven and not credible without confirmation.

That's my opinion --- of course other people will decide for themselves how much credence they will give such statements.

Frankly, if you disclose that you had an affair while married, are the additional details really very important? That seems like 99% of the issue to me.

I accept everything they agree upon, and I'm suspicious of the disclosures she has added to that catalog. I am willing to consider the things she has added to be unproven and not credible without confirmation.

Frankly, if you disclose that you had an affair while married, are the additional details really very important? That seems like 99% of the issue to me.

I'd say it is pretty close to 99% of the issue. But note that conservatives and Gingrich himself are going stark-raving berserk that the other person's side of the story is being heard as well. We've heard Newt's side, but if we hear her side then faces turn read and veins start to pop.

In your previous post, you demonized her based as a person with an axe to grind willing to lie to hurt him. And you came to this conclusion based solely on the word of a near pathological liar and serial adulterer. I'd be inclined to take what he says with a boulder or five of salt, but to each his own. If you are willing accept everything he says without question, I'm fine with that.

This goes back to my thesis that conservatives not only reject facts contrary to their opinions, but actually get angry when presented with potentially contrary information. It isn't that they simply reject the information. It upsets them to even hear it in the first place.

As I said, the important part of the allegations to me are not in dispute, that Newt cheated on his wife.

While salacious, the idea of an open marriage or whatever amounted to an effort to find a basis to salvage the marriage. It amounted to a discussion and negotiation if it happened at all, and in any case was never a fact of their married life.

So I have no interest in the allegation and see no reason why the disputed claim should be accepted.

But this is politics, and if others wish to titter about it, you are certainly welcome to do so. It's like prying into Bill Clinton's relationship with Hillary in the post Monica period. Probably interesting for the political opposition in a salacious way, but not especially relevant.

It sounds like we agree that 99% of the moral content of the issue is the undisputed fact of Newt's cheating. That being the case, I have little interest in the other disputed 1%. There is no real way to know what happened there and personally, I see no reason not to cut Newt some slack on the disputed allegation since he admits the far more serious personal issue.

That seems fair to me.

Personally, I think Obama shines with his lovely family and charming wife by comparison. Mitt Romney too.

Newt and Bill Clinton are proven to be self indulgent sexual sleazebags. That is not an absolute disqualification for public office, but it's certainly something that voters are entitled to consider according to their own personal values.

Dan Savage (who defined "Santorum" for us) has an interesting comment on Newt denying his ex-wife's comments on open marriage:

All Gingrich was denying with that “false!” was the allegation that he had asked his second ex-wife for an open marriage.

Newt Gingrich wants us to know that he did not ask his second ex-wife for an open marriage. An honest open relationship was never on the table. Newt and Callista’s six-year-long adulterous relationship was grounded in deceit and betrayal from the start, and Newt and Callista never wavered from the path of deceit and betrayal. Newt Gingrich was making an implicit promise to socially conservative voters: He did not ask his most recent ex-wife for an open marriage, and he will not ask any of his future ex-wives for an open marriage.

The lesson in Gingrich’s angry denial and the applause that greeted it: An honest open relationship is more scandalous, and more politically damaging, than a dishonest adulterous relationship. An honest, mutually consensual nonmonogamous marriage — which is not what Newt was proposing (you can’t negotiate an honest open marriage with your spouse six years into an affair) — is newer and somehow more threatening than the “traditional” cheating Gingrich engaged in.

<<The lesson in Gingrich’s angry denial and the applause that greeted it: An honest open relationship is more scandalous, and more politically damaging, than a dishonest adulterous relationship. An honest, mutually c>>

I think the audience was objecting to politically motivated reporters trying to make political capital off an unfortunate event that was properly a matter between the two parties to the marriage.

No different than the anger directed at the media by Democrats when Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions became sensationalized.